The Sun. — London, England, 1838-07-17 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-( \ E; , 'l ER DAY. ) ' (From our Second Edition of last night.) DAY V. DiA-JUDGMENT. The Ntarrra of the liohrs this morning g :re judgmr - nt in this case, which came before the Court upon the petition of Richard Thomas Saunders. who t rayed a eec'aration tl at he was ent tied to the income of the residue of the personal e.ta'e cf the testator, George Day (the I tte eelettratcd blacki ig-m , nufacturer), whirli had :seemed, due sir ec the death of his late wire, I:argsret Susanna Saunders, and a•eintefoith to accrue, due during his own life, and fi r consequential directions. Mrs. Saunders was the !totem's dauhttr, and the testator by his will, dated the sth April IS4O, gave the residue of his persbnal estate to Trustees in tru.t, to pay the interest, dividends, and annual produce thereof to his daughter and her as,igns for her life, fur her separate usr,independent of any husband with whom she might ihtermarry, and without power of anticipation. As the will originally stood, an interest for life was ex pre sly given to any husband of his daugh:er, and the trusts fta the benefit of the children were matte to commence on the death of both hu-band and wife ; but the testator at some time, which was not known, obliterated the words containing those directions; while in a direction as to the maintenance of the children after the de.ith of persons entitled to the life interest, he !eft the wor,ls and any such litt,batul as aforesaid ;" and whether those word: should have any, and if any, what effect, was the question to be determined in this petition. The daughter after the testator's death (but pursuant to arratig,,ments made in his life ti me, and with his consent) married Mr. Saunders, the petitioner, but had since died, leaving Mr.• Saunders and several children surviving her. It had been contended on behalf of the petitioner, that notwithstanding the obliteration of the express gift to him, air implied gift to him still remained. On the other hand, it had been contended for his children that the weeds " and any such husband as aforesaid," in the direction et what was to he done after the death of Mr. Saunders, were inconsis tent with, or repugnant to, what was the intention of the testator as shown by the obliteration of the words which expressly gave a life inte rest to Mr. Saunders. His Lordship was of opiciott the testator had re voked the direct gift, and could not mean his will, in the state he had left it, to operate as an implied gift to the same effect; that according to the true construction of the will, the testator's residuary personal estate on the death of his daughter became the property of her children living at her death; and that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit which he prayed by Isis petition. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS, JuLr 16. -- The SPIAKER took the chair at about Five minutes to Four. ROYAL EXCHANGE BILL. if' j .4 ~} !T` Sir M. WOOD moved the third reading of this Bill. Mr. PRYME said that this Bill proposed a tax upon coals, and he had always thought that improvements in buildings— whether Ramsgata Pier or Royal Exchange—ought not to be carried into effect by a tax levied on one of the necessaries of life; and that it was unjust that the inhabitant of an obscure alley, who was struggling for subsistence, should be forced to contribute, and in a much higher prcportion, according to his means, than the richer of his fellow-citizens. He therefore moved that this Bill be read a third time that day six months. Mr. W. ATTWOOD seconded the amendment. He should be happy to see the Royal Exchange rebuilt—( Hear) —and every improvement in the City effected; but he did not think these objects should be attained by the imposition of such a duty as this. That House had appointed a Committee to investigate the coal trade and the coal duties; and the Committee recommended that those duties should be continued for seven years, and at the expiration of that period be subject to re vision. A public Bill with this object in view had been brought in, and now a private Bill was introduced to continue for twenty years the duties which had been by the other Bill only authorised for seven. Were not these Bills utterly incon • 'Agent ? And was it possible that the House would sanction —against the recommendation of its own Committee—. such a Bill as this? Let it be recollected, with respect to the effect of the coal duty on the poorer classes of the people, that it was not merely the direct amount of that tax, for perhaps the poor man did not consume a ton, or a couple of tons per annum. But when they considered by the compo sition of the due that they called on the poor man to sacrifice his fuel for one day in the year to contribute towards the Royal Exchange—when they considered that every thing which he consumed was rendered dearer by the operation of this tax—when they considered further that those who would give him employment were prevented by the operation of this coal duty from coming into competition with those who re sided at a distance from the metropolis, it would be seen that it pressed with no small weight on the poorer classes.— ( Hear.) Here was the City of London seeking to perpetuate the whole amount of this duty on the inhabitants of the City, for the fixing this for twenty years must be considered as no thing less than a perpetuation.—( Hear.) If to improve the streets the coal duty was to be continued there would always be similar purposes found for the disposal of a sum of money, and if that was to be supplied by the coal duties it would never be removed from the City of London. It was proposed that for twelve years there should be paid 7,0001. a year as a se curity for 150,0001. proposed to be raised. It was proposed this should take place when changes were taking place, and no one could tell to what extent they were likely to be carried. By the prolongation of twenty years, the House deprived itself of the advantage of reconsidering the duty, and adapting it to altered circumstances. Upon these grounds he supported the amendment of the Hon. Member (Mr. Pryme), arid trusted the House would not sanction the principle of imposing the whole amount of the coal duty for twelve years in opposition to the principle laid down by the Coal Trade Bill, that it should only be for seven years, and after that time be open for revision. Mr. L ABOUCrIERE felt it his duty to say a few words, because he thought the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last had rather mis-stated the cese. The Hon. Gentleman had stated that the Bill which he ( Mr. Labouchere) hail introduced im posed a duty upon coals for seven years, and that then it con-. templated the eecession of those duties after those seven years. whereas the Bill before the House proposed to continue those duties for a much longer period. He had the pleasure of meeting the Hon. Gentleman in the Committee upen whose recommendation the Bill as as introduced, and he must be aware that the Coal Trade Bill, so far from imposing duties for any fixed period, only commuted the duties which already existed, and which must txi4t. for -- a much longer period.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The Bill pro vided that -for the next seven sears a much more simple machinery should be applied to the collection of these duties, and one more conducive to the public advantage. That was the sole and simple object of the Bill ; :Lid it was optional with Parliament, at the end of those seven years, to consider that commutation, and renew if it were foun d . to wog k well. He thought it necessary to say so much, lest the House should be led a, try by the statements of the Hon. Gentleman. He would now address himself to the Bill before the House, and he so far agreed with the Honourable Member, that lie thought it extremely desirable those duties should cease altegrthrr.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He should be very glad to see the time when the Bd. duty would cease altogether, and he had strong hopes that that would be speedily effected. The louse should recollect the circumstances under which this tax was levied: . It was originally contemelet-d that this duty of 81. per ton should he continued for cer ain I , u .p rs,s until the yees 1838. for the payment of certain duties in trust. In con equence, however, of the great increase of tr.rde in the Port of Londor. it was found that the du'y would be p ri.l cff before that period, and that it would be but just to provide fur its ceasing. Tint House would admit that it w of great general importance and interest that the loyal Exchange, which had been destroyed by a late unror tunate areiti. - nt should be bit upon a scale of splendour worthy of the ii.:-wortanec of this great commercial metropolis ; and the o n ly cite stion was how the funds could be mist conveniently I .roveled f..r this i,urpo , e. Upon the whole be w‘s inclined to believe that the recommendation of ti e Committee was the Lest em.rse to adept, Lamely to allow the duty to continue for the fu'l time, and it was upon that around I:e should go with the proposition of the Ho nourable .Member opp site, if it were thought necessary to livid- the Houle. II had been said by sonic Hon. Members that, in the 'nurse they were adopting, they acted inconsis tently with the Bill which eniatinted from the Coal Trade Committee. Now, in antra or to that, lie must say they were Lot acting inc.nisistently with that Bill, Lut u ith the report (.1 the Cummi n s e. In cnnelusi, n. l.e hal only to repeat that, if the H )use divided, he should think it to be his duty to supoort the motion of tie Hon. Member. MA II E thought the (tight Hon. Gentlem tit had not corrartly stated the situation in which they were placed with regard to the Bill lie ( Nlr. Ilurec) thought it wis quite competent tee the Bill to pass, for the purpose of making the improvements alluded to in the city of London, without any additional tax being made urn coals. He objected to the pot r Iran being taxed for any such purpose. Arid as a proof of the validity of that objection, be hid only to refer to what took place in 1830. when a security was given upon the tax on coal.t, in order to enable the parties to proceed with the erection of London Bridge. By the Bill to enable the erection of that great undertaking, a tax of Bd. was to be levied on coals, till the whole amount was paid. Such a tax i e considered sufficient on the poor man, without increasing it further, as proposed by the present Bill. Out of 137,0001., which was the pro-tees of the tax. 84,00;'/. was applied towards the re-payment of the borrowed money ; if that liquitlatien went on, it would all be paid u) in 1831 or 1852 ; and then, if the 1-kus:t did not V ila fit to renew the grant, then of caurse the City would revert to the 4d. per ton granted them by charter. The question for the House to consider was, whether they would continue a tax upon that which was a necessary of life to all the people . of England. and the two neighbouring coun ries. If they passed the Bill they made that tax responsible for another 150.000/ , which at all events would continue tie tax fur three )ears. He protested against a tax being conti nued for any such purpose upon an absolute necessary of lire. Let the rich merchants of London follow the example of their brethren of Liverpool, and raise the money amongst themselves. There had been many meetings held upon a late occasion, when sneny uf the merchants of London stated that it was disgraceful that no more than firma 70,0001. to 80,000 1 . s hould be spent upon a Corueation, but was it not much more disgraceful for the rich and psi. eely city of London to put a duty upon every piece of coal continued by the poor around them ? Why should not the merchants pay their two guineas a-year for the use of congregated or the purpose of the Exchange in which they conducting their business ; or why should not the rents of that property be applied for the purpose of repaying the m raw h oney i ? He would, therefore, ask th e lion. Member withds and to allow the opposition to•the third reading o f the Bill, sense of the House to be taken on the amendment, whi ch _ would take away the power of continu in g the ri d. tax on coals. When the Bill was read a third time, he would propose that alteraeion e which would relieve them from the difficulty they were theta under. Mr. WARBURTON agreed in the observation made by his fiun. Friend, as to the propriety of time mei chants of Lon don raisins,' a fund for tire building.—(He. - , hear.) Thaw who used it ought to pay for it. The SPEAKER said the object of the Hon. NiKnber for Kilkenny appeared to be to take a burden from one fund And to lay it upon another; now be (the Speaker) doubted if such an object could be cliectel upon the third reading of a .Bill. ~ A Sir R. INGLIS said it had been contended the object of the Bill e as the imposition of a tax for the erection of a Roj al Ex change. Such was not the case. The Royal Eye:m.ll'e was not to be erected with the funds arising from the coal duty coatinued by this Bill. The object of the Bill was to make approaches to the Royal Exchange. It had been sail that the merchants cf the city G f London ought to be as willing to ca.ntriLute to the formation of a building for their accommo i'ation. as the merchants of Bristol or of Liverpool. He (Sir Robert I tglis) did not think the London merchants %so .Id dissent fiom that. But the feet was the duty fix , d en icr this Bill was not to erect a Royal Exele.ege, but to male the approaches to it. He did not wish to del reel tte the importance of lowering the price of coals; but be thought it would be much better to seek to effect that desirable object by doing away w ith the monopoly which added 40 per cent. to the price of the articles than to stop this useful project. The CH ANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had supported the Bill in Gimmittce, and was prepared to support it now. He did so, because the Bill did net impose the coal duty for the erection of an Exchange, but to make the appre aches thereto. If the form( r had been the ca:e there might have been some ground for the opposition. To the building of the Exchange the City itself was to contribute. Now what we - e the purposes for which this coal. tax were approp. iated ? Were they purposes in which the gem ral trade and convenience of the community were to be consulted ? It was in evidence, and was notorious to every one who passed through the City, that there nas no greater thoroughfare and no greater embarrass ment than between the Bank and the old Exchange.—( Hear. ) On these general grounds it was but just to assent to the resent Bill, but he did think that the existing generation owed a specks of debt to those who had teen burnt out which they ought to pay for the hem fit of posterity. —( Hear, hear.) It was the duty of tl e public at large to make that calamity the source of convenience to the community. Had the great fire of London been turned to account in formerdays, and the schemes then proposed been carried into effect, conveniences would have been found which the public bad been deprived of. If the House refused to assent to the present Bill it would deprive itself of an ooportunity which would never occur again, of seeing the Exchange re-built, not lay the burden of the Coal-tax nor by burdens on the people at large, but by the efforts of the Mercers' Company. On these grounds he gave his hearty assent to the Bill ; at the same time he meant to propose some verbal amendments to one of the clauses, to which he thought the introducers of the Bill would not object. Lord G. SOMERSET supported the amendment, and stated that he could not concur with the remarks of his Hon. Friend near him. Mr. B A RNA RD seeing that the city of London had be haved to generously thought that the sum provided for by the present Bill ought to be granted. Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON, as one of the Com mittee, would give his support to the Bill on the same grounds as those stated by the Hon. Member who had spoken last. At the same time he must say that if any other tax could be found he should prefer it ; money fur similar purposes had been raised in former years by lotteries. Sir B. HALL hoped that he should never see lotteries in. stituted in the country again. He could never give his consent to the Bill, as he thought that a tax on coals was most objectionable.—( Hear.) He thought that the promoters of the Bill who had been so loud for the reduction of taxation, were acting in rather an inconsistent manner.—( Cheers.) Mr. ANDREW WHITE denied that there was any monopoly in the coal trade : he thought that making a duty on coals for such a purpose unjust in principle, and that it would be far more creditable to the merchants of London if they would follow the example of the merchants of Liverpool, and erect the Royal Exchange and its approaches at their own expense.--( Cheers.) Sir M. WOOD did not think it necessary to detain the House for a moment in reply to the unjust attacks which had been made upon the au:hors of the Bill. The attack of the Hon. Member for Greenwich was at least ungracious, as the City, in the Bill then on the table of the House, had given up 5,0001. which would go into the pockets of the owners of steam.boats. The city were called upon to lay out a vast sum of money to improve the approaches to the Bank of England, which would be a benefit to persons in all parts of London. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. Ihe House divided, and the numbers were— For the third reading of the Bill Against it Majority in favour of the third reading —64 On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX CHEQUER, a clause was then added to the Bill, by way of rider, the purport of which (it having been moved before we were admitted) we could not hear, and the Bill was passed. Mr. HUME observed that he meant to have moved a clause, founded on the statement of the worthy Alderman ( Sir M. Wood), that not more that 60,0001. would be re quired. But, after the decided majority on the third reading, he would not trouble the House; protesting, however, against the system of imposing all taxes on the poor.—( Hear.) THE CORONATION. Mr. HUME gave notice for to.morrow, or next day, of a motion for a return of all promotions at the late Coronation, and the expenses which accrued to the public therefrom. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. The HONOURABLE MEMBER then proceeded to intro duce his motion regarding the early sittings of the House. It must be in the recollection of the House, that on five days on which notices stood first, the House had been counted out, or prevented from being made, in order that discussions might not proceed. That showed an indisposition in the House to listen to such matters. He was as anxious as any one to preserve the right of introducing notices, but he submitted to the House that at this period of the Session they ought to give all their time to the disposal of such business a; it wits essentially ne cessary to cirry through. He proposed, theretoro, that 0.1 Tuesdays and Thur,days crd,rs have precedence of motions. The motion was agreed to. CANADA. The Marquis of CHANDOS inquired if any official account of the names, salaries, and dates of the appintments made by Lord Durham had been received? Sir GEORGE GREY was understood to reply that one copy of the Gazelle ha•l been received, and that the informa tion would be furnished as soon as p , ,s,ible. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that with respect to the &Aries ha could only refer to the papers laid on the table of the How? some time ago. Ile had icason to believe there was no other person with a salary. FACTORIES. Lord ASHLEY gave notice that on the first motion goin g into a Committee of Supply, he should move as an amindment the motiou of which he had given notice on the sulject of factories. Mr. DARBY enquired if it were ifaended to go into Com mittee of Su 7ply to-clay? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER r, , plied in the negittiie. DUI"! ON WOOL. Sir G. lIEATHCOTE wished to ask a question with re , -pcct to the exports of British Wool to France. This country took their wool at a mere nominal duty, while they ke, , t up an ad valorem duty of 22 per cent. Was tit re any probability of that duty being taken off? Mr. P. THOMSON said that some time ago it was inti mated to him that the French Covet-11,11cm intonded to reduce the duty to a considerable extent. Since then no re. ductionhad taken place, and he had reason to believe that no farther reduction would he made. At the same time he would observe that it was more their inttrest than that of the Lig ii.h Governmeot t, make a 1-Auction. NEGRO EMANCIPATION. Mr. O'CONNELL begged to ask the Right Urn. Bar,. net the Secietary for the Colonies, whether any dispatch e s hid be, n rests ived from the West Indies, relative to the im mediate ern nip .thin of the negroes ; and whether there was rea s o n to apprehend any diffi...urties in earning that measure into r if et ? Sir GEORGE GREY said dispatches had Lecn r«teived this (13y alnouneing that proviion h,d been msde by the Legislature of Jamaica fur the emanci, athtm of the negro apprentices on the fir.t day of August. On the 9:11 of Ju,e, the day on which the Bill had pass , d the House of Assembly of Jamaica, it was sent up to the Council, returned by them with some win:Omen's, and no farther pro. eeedings had been taken at the time the packet s ailed. In St. Lucia a majority of the Council w2re in favour of a similar Aep. A triesige had also been address -d to the Legislature and Council of Trinidad by the Governor, calling their attention to the s ime subject, and suggest the expediency of following their example. A similar message hid been addressed by Governor Colborne, aas to be taken into c6nsidtrathin on the 6th of June. UNIVERSITY Oh LONDON. Mr. GIBSON rose to ask the Noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, a que,tion relative to the cause of the present embarrassed state of the Uniso rsity of Lo don. Statements of a very extraordinary nature had a; peared in the public prit.ts, reflecting on the conduct of some Members of the Senate and of M. tubers of her Majesty's Government; and he d to ask the Noble Lord whether it was true that the Committee of the Faculty of Medicine had for some time suspended its labours, and whether various Members of the Senate had not announced their intention not to resume their functions. He wished also to know whether considerable dissatisfaction had r.ot been ex • I pressed by a Right Rev. Prelate on account of the defective nature of the charter ? Ile wished also to know whether the Lord Bishop of Durham had not written to the Chancellor of the University of London, stating that if the preset t system were pursued the whole plan would prove abortive , and was calculated to render the University of London an object of ridicule and contempt rather than of praise. He wished the Noble Lord to state to the H.)use whether Le meant to issue a, new chatter to the University of Lon don ; and uhile on that subject, he would ask—(Much laughter)—whether it was the intention of the Government to persevere in withholding compensation from those meinhets of the Senate who had devoted their tine to the organisation of that University; and whether in the case of a new charter ( Renewed laughter)—ha should have done presently-- whether in that case the Noble Lord intended to entrust the superintendence of the University to an unpaid management ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Honourable Mem ber had asked him so many questions, that rerhaps he would not think him unreasonable if he only answered on e.___( A laugh.) That was wit 4 respect to the pre sent .tote of the University, with reference to the medical Committee w:ticli the Honourable Member had stated he un derstood had for some time ceased to act effectively. He "ccr- I tainly had been informed that for some time the Medical Committee had not met in sufficient ntimbers to enable them to eat, but he had every reason to believe that the difficulties that had arisen would shortly be pat an end to, Atnd the Committee would meet f,:r r;:gular business in Octn ben Of this he was sure, that discussions in that House vierp pot likely to do R.ny good. ORANGE FLAGS. Mr. HUME wished to know, from the Noble Lord at the head of the Home Department whether it was correct, as re ported in several papers, that from the Protestant Cliurc:ei in the north of Ireland the Orange Flag was displayed on se‘eral o7casions ? _ . Lo d J. RUSSELL said he would advert to that circum stance in the statement he should presently make to the House I answer to Mr. FRESHEIELD, Mr. WARD said it was not his intention to p-oce-d with the Metropolitan Scners Bill this session, further than to have it printed and in the hands of the Members for consideration. Mr. BAINES begged to inquire of the Hon. Baronet, the tinder Secretary for the Colonies, whether it was the inten tion of the Government to make arty communication to Par- Ii with respect to what they intended to do with the question of slavery in the Crown colonies? Sir G. GREY was not aware that it would be at all ncces• s iry. The Government had sent out a circu'ar to all the Co cities, and he hid already stated that the r oc wrimr.mda tion ha I been acted on by the three Crown Colonies oi the West Im:ies. The same circular and recommendation had been cent to the Mauritius, and he trusted it would ulso be acted upon there. • TITHES (IRELAND). Lnrd JOHN RUSSELL said the House would expect some communication with respect to the result of the deli berations of the Government, upon the debate which took place when the Tithe Bill was last before the House. Upon that occasion the motion of the Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin ( Mr. O'Connell), was supported by the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire ( Lord Stanley), but upon that occasion he ( Lord John Russell) stated that he had three objections to the course then proposed The proposal was to sacrifice the public money for the purpose of passing that Bill. His first objection to it was that the amount required to satisfy the claims had never been stated ; his second objection was that the Honourable and Learned Member for Dublin had stated that the arrangement even then would not be satisfactory to a large body of the Roman Catholic population, and therefore he thought it inexpedient that such a large sacrifice of the public money should be made.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He had stated, in the third place, that he thought as to the future working of this measure it would be a bad precedent to begin with grants, which would be certainly to the tithe owners, but by which all who had resisted the law and refused the payment of tithes would obtain a remission, and those who had paid their tithes would receive no adven t: ge—( Hear)—and that, in consequence, in the future col 'cetion of the rent charges, landlords would be likely to look to Parliament for any deficiency, and thus the good working of the measure would be interfered with. But these statements of his ( Lord J. Russell's) did not meet with the acceptance of the House ; and with regard to one, the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) had made a proposition by which the first object of those statements would be no longer applicable. Now the chief motive which induced the Government to modify the course which they before bad considered just was, that there appeared a very general opinion in the House that some sacrifice on the part of the public of the nature propoeed would tend to the general settlement of this question, and that it would promote the cause of peace and harmony between adverse parties in Ire land, and he ( Lord J. Russell) thought that whatever might be the opinion of the Government on a question of this nature, a proposition of this kind, uniting the suffrages of Members, differing on subjects connected with the Church, would be more likely to promote peace and tranquillity in Ireland, and that the Government ought not to stand in the way of the prospect of a satisfactory settlement. He thought, however, it would be necessary to provide that it should not be optional with the tithe owners whether they would accept the proposal, for if some accepted, and others enforced the law, the object which they had in view in this proposition would be entirely defeat e d.—( H ear. ) With these opinions, therefore, he would now proceed to state msince t h the propositions which he intended to make to the H ouse . The first part of the subject would be the amount of 640,0001. which had boom already advanced under the authority of the do,former hiAcptroptonstihtienntitwheitohwnthere arrearss. Co passing should of the Act, it did not appear to him to ho expedient to make a proposition entirely for the payment of that sum by instalments, but that the sum should be entirely remitted and forgiven to the occupier, but that the landlord and persons who would be liable to a rent charge under the present Bill, and owed these instalments, should be still obliged t o p ay them, and that the Treasury should be empowered t o co ll ect them. But when he said that, with regard to the landlord, the sum should be collected by the Treasury, he did not mean to propose that the Treasury should collect those sums for the benefit of the State, or for a repayment that was to remain finally with tire Exchequer. He proposed the sum should go in part satisfaction of the persons who claimed the arrears of tithes which accrued since. He proposed to add to that the sum which had already been received by the Treasury in repayment of the instal ments. The next part of the question was the question of the remainder of the million as connected with the arrears of tithe composition. Now the amount was rather different from that which was stated the other day in the course of the debate. There were, as he had alreedy said, 640,000/., which were actually advanced to the owners of tithes out of the million.—( He tr. hear.) There was a yet further sum, which was applied by a subsequent Act of Parliament, and in consequence of a loan which had been advanced by the Exchequer out of the sum voted for public works for the use of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Ireland. The Ecclesias tical Commissioners were not at first able to meet the demands made upon them. They were allow( dto receive one hun dred thousand pounds from the Treasury, and by a subse quent Act thst sum which had not been paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners war given to the public works out of the remainder of the million which had been voted by Parliament. Now, there was a sum of 640,000/ which had been alresdy applied. The remaining stint was 261.000/. What he proposed was diet tl.c 264,000/. tog( tlier with all that part of the 640,000/., which might be recovered from the landlord shout I be applied to liquidate the arrears of the tithe composition fur 1836 and 1837. That was together, as he had already said, with any sum that might be already paid. He believed that he had already mentioned that he wished to state more explicitly, with regard to th a sum 260,000/., and the further sums that would" be paid, it was proposed that they should only go in liqui dation of those arrears of Tithe Composition due from oc cupying tenants; that with regard to any landlords who had un dertaken the payment of Tit e Composition, and with regard to any landlord to is hem the Act of the Noble L ord o pp osite applied, that with respect to those persons there would be no remission. The rent-charge would, by that meting, in future be put upon the landlords, who were liable. The amount, therefore, of his proposition was this, that towards the pay merit of arrears of t the comp tsition, from 1836 and 1837, due by occupying tenants, there should I e employed the sum of 263 0001., and the whole of the 640,0001. due from landlords, and also due from 1 rs impropi iaeors—the proprietors of the land as well a> the tithe. It would be impossible t r make a statement of the exact amount of the sums to be recovered and added to the 260,000/ , but there could be no doubt that it would exceed 300,000/. Where the lay impropriatnr had not the lanh, then the division would take place in the sam net .n-r as iti the Ca .0 of teller persons It was rposcd in consideration of ti.eae sums that the whole of th e ar, e srs of t;the, whi c h were nce , y existiae, should b r at once abolishe I, and tl.a . di. re s hould be no airears exe- pt such as iv, re reserved by the present Bill. : il e le i c 6 t 3 t s lrci a n tt f it n It appeared t o hi m with re gar d t o a ny arrears accruing b tass haring rotb'elebille ttnia,de, but without s ucc e sa, at any further proceed ings wo u ld b e tel;o1 with respect to them after the paving of to before :: the pre=ent Act. With respect to any fetal e harmony and peace wit . ch was to be exp Nee I in I , elai".d, Inc could not but rat het t the question pat to him a short time pre. •esly by tee floriom ab'e Member fur Kilkenny. r espeet:ng a hit had t ikon pl ice only a few days beck iri that country. Ile ( Lord Russell) r, reived a later from the Lord Lieutenant that nhoei ng, iu which it was st tted that, not only wer Orange 11 . I ts displayed upon the Churches iiii the floral of Ireland, but firing of guas hal also taken place. Ile thought it was not out of the power o f the Clergy to preve . i t those demon strations. If, under this Act, or any other, they sought for peace and harmony, it could pot be b alleeing demonstri tiens which would excite hostile feelings bete:rest the Catholic people a n d th e P rotestants. There could be no chance of future pe nce un l ess some d i -pos i t i on o f f or b earan ce was dis• pleyed on both s id es. Only by such a spirit, and not b y the sacrifice of 300.000/., or tt n times that sum, could that desir able end be obtained. The Noble Lord cce,cluded by movirg that the House resolve itself into a Committee for the purpose of considering so much of the 6th and 7th Win. I V., clause 180, as authorises the issue of Exchequer Bills. Mr. HUME submitted whether, as a matter of forme, 'the Noble Lord ever knew of a propes:l to grant away a million of I the public money made to that House without due notice. Lord J. RUSSELL—If the Hon. Gentleman would insist upon that objection he should not press his motion; what he wished was to have his proposition fairly before the limas-, print, d, and in the hands of Members to consider it. Mr. Ii UM E thought it w is the duty of tie Chancellor of tire Exchequer to look to this roVely of the public purse. He felt convinced that this sacrifice of a million would be only a truce for a few months; the loss of the money being not half to bad as the violation of principle. The Noble Lord had given up his own opinion against the proposal, as he asserted, in deference to the opinion of the House ; but he (Mr. Hume) di I not think that opinion of the House was at all ascertained. He would, therefore, object to the motion, as when leading Whigs and Tories joined in committing a great larceny on the public the Representatlws of the people should have an oppor tunity of con,i(b-ring how it was done. Sir R. E L was not disposed to throw any impediment in pow • t upon form ,on the cour,7e of tie Noble L or d , i n this ad vanced peri el of the Session, in a measure which would prove of great advantage in bringing the Tithe question to a saris f story termination.—( Hear, hear.) At the same time he would not pledge himself irrevocably to the clauses to be then proposed. It a , peated that the Noble Lord would nit be able to incorporate this provision in his Bill, unless it went throueh a preliminary Committee ; but that Would not bind Hon. Members to it in its subs e q u e n t Wages, should it be found advi. able to change it. Onl y u p on this condition was he (Sir R. R Peel) disposed to acquiesce, reserving t o hi mse lf Bill, of it full consideration, and decidin g upon i ts the entire power, when th e clauses were incorporated i n th e g ar. ) rye latter part of the Noble Lord' s speeds he (Sir R. 1)( e 1) had beard with some regret, when he intro duced the totally unconnected matter of the hoisting of Orange flags upon the steeples of churches in the north of Irel Ind with g b s e — very well- Hear)-- conciliatory question before the House . -- (Hear, e h a e r a ) r_.) and the for one,Neh Noble Lden:dt himselfb efore heard n oft appear these t fl oa Informed upon it ; besides , it was not stated that thos e exhibi tions were wade with the concurrence of the Pr o t es t an t clergy. He, fur one, did no hesitate frrikly t o avow that the plerp and the landlords should do all the? could te prevt.iat THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 17, 183 S such exhibit:ons ; Lut on - the pact of the clergy he fc't bound to protest against the general impeachment thrown out againtt them by the Noble Lord.,—( Hear, and cheers.) • Mr. IRVINE had received a later from a most respectable gentieman residing in the county of Antrim, assuring him that no such manifest ttion as that to which the Noble Lord had adverted had taken place in that county. Mr. O'CO NNE LL wished to know from whence the letter to 7a hich the Hon. Member alluded was dated? -Mr. IRVINE r, plied, fnan Lisburne. Mr. O'CONNELL %aid that it was not a little singular, ns Lisburne was nvar Bolftvt. where the troops had actually been called out to quell the rioters after they had broken the win dows of the house of the Roman Catholic Bishop, and com mitted othcr outrages. After a few words from Mr. DUNBAR and Captain JONES, Mr. WARD did not believe that the proposition of the Noble Lord wouli lead to al adjustment of this question It was true that the Government plan was less objectionable Van the plan of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tam worth, but still, when On was a million of money to I.e tlea't with, he did not think th.y would be justified in de paving from the rules of t . e House. He hoped his Hon. Fritn.l the Member for Kilkenny would persist in his motion, and if he did he should have his support. Mr. LUCAS would not concur in any plan the object of which was to do justice to all p irties. With respect to the Noble Lord's plan, all he (Mr Lucas) would say was that he was not to be considered as pledged in any way to that plan, and that, should he have objections to it, he should claim his right of urging them hereeter. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that although the Government had considered the plan of his Right Honourable Friend the Member for Tamworth, they had not adopted it. What was the object which the Govern ment had in view ? Why, to give the House information, and this could only be done by enabling them to bring for ward the clauses, with a view to their being printed and cir culated, by which they meant to carry their intention into' effect. For this purpose it was indispensable that they • • should go into Committee on the resolution, and then, when the clauses to be founded on it were brought in and printed, Honourable Gentlemen would be able to seethe whole scheme by which the Government intended to carry their proposition out. At the earliest no discussion on the subject could take place before Thursday ; and as that was the case, aid as with out knowing what the plan was they could not decide upon it, he hoped his Hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny would not ]persist in his opaosition. Mr. WARBURTON said that what his Hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny wished wag, that the resolution should be proposed without pronouncing any opinion upon it at pre sent. This could be done if the Chairman were, as soon as it had been proposed, to report progress and ask leave to sit again to-morrow. So far from there being unanimity of feeling on the part of the House with respect to this propo sition, he believed there were many Hon. Members on both sides who strongly objected to it. Such bwing the state of the case, he must express it as his opinion that the course pur sued by his Hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny was a proper one. Sir E. B. SUGD EN said that the original resolution, with respect to compensation, was brought forward for the relief of the clergy of Ireland exclusively, and as he had some diffi culty as to the extending this principle to the other tithe owners, he should like to see the point properly considered. Mr. HARVEY said that his Hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny did not seem to understand what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. as it was clear, from what the Right Hon. Gentleman had said, he had no wish that any opinion should be pronounced at the present time on the Government proposition. Without having before them the resolution and the machinery by which it was to be carried into effect it was impossible that they could take the matter into consideration ; but, as regarded the proposition itself, all he could say was that this country would be as much astonished at it as the Government themselves were when they first heard of it on Friday night. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth bad dexterously led the Government into this plan, but now he as dexterously avoided pledging himself to it. Ile (Mr. Harvey) predicted that the only advantage which the Government would derive from the course which they had taken would be an increase of unpopularity. Lord J. RUSSELL would not object to the course sug gested of going into Committee, proposing the resolution, and taking the subject into consideration at a future period. Lord STANLEY said that there was a point on which he was desirous of information. If he understood the Noble Lord rightly, he proposed to remit the 640,0001. advanced to the clergy, where the clergy nad abstained from levying from the landlord or occupying tenant any part of the arrears due to them. Did the Noble Lord mean that the Government might levy that amount only which was due to the clergy from the landlord, and not from the occupying tenant? By the Million Act under which the advance was made the party liable was defined; but then that Act did not come into ope ration until 1834, and in 1833 the liability for the tithe rested, not with the landlord, but with the occupying tenant. He might be labouring under some mistake, but it was at all events right that the House should know the amount of remis sion on which they could reckon. Sir R. PEEL said that there was another subject of mis application on which the Noble Lord ought to obtain in forma,ion. He would not ask any question at present relative to it, but merely say to the Noble Lord that he ought to ob tai❑ some information as to the 100,0001. which had been granted to the Ecelesisstical Commissioners —( Hear.) Mr. HUNIE wished to know if it were intended to excuse those landlords who were occupiers from the repayment of the advances which bad been made to them ?—( Cries of " No, no.") , Lord J. I USSELL said that they were not to be exempted. With respect to what had fallen from the Nob!e Lord opposite, all he could say was, that in many cases the landlord would be liable to the repayment of the instalments, and that in many others the advances, for instance, to lay impropriators were not made recoverable. He would be very glad to find that Ecclesiastical Commissioners were in a condition to refund the 100,000/. alluded to by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth.—( A laugh.) Mr. LUCAS contended that the liability of the landlord was the result of a post facto law. The House then resolved itself into Committee, and Lord J RUSSELL having proposed the resolution, Mr. HUME said that it made no mention whatever of the 100 0001. which had Leon paid to the Ecclesiastical Commis sion( rs. Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was not neccssarv, as the resolution referred to the Act of Parliament under which that payment Baas made. Mr. HUME certainly had not been aware until now that any such sum had been applied to ecclesiastical purposes, and he thought the fact ought to be stated in the resolution. • The resolution was then agreed to, and the Howe having resumed, Lord J. RUSSELL then moved that the House should go into Committee again, for the purpose of considering the re maining clauses of the Bill, and when they had got through them they could then proceed with the clauses rendered neces sary by the• resolution. Mr. Fl UNIE hoped the Noble Lord would fix some day after Thursday fur this purpose. Sir G. SINCLAIR postponed the motion of v.hich he bad given n tie., for c,lling the attention of the House to the state of the Irish Protestants, and ;he policy of her Majesty's Mi nisters, to a future day. Mr HARVEY said that, as the resolution had come on them like a thunder storm,, they ought to have ample time allowed them to consider it. For this purpose it would be neeessa y to wade through the debates that had taken p'ace on the suLject, arA he did not think they should be required to go int ► that part of the question before Thursdiy. Lord J. RUSSELL said that the debates which had taken place ct,uld afford little assistance, as there had been but one opinion expres , ed on the subjoet on either side of the House. Mr, AGLION BY denied this, and said that the Noble Lord wdeld find to his regret that there were a great num - he of Members opposed to his proposition on both sides of the House. The liouie then went into Committee; Mr. Bernal in ti:e Chair. Ott clause 3 being put, Mr. L E FRO Y, in the absence of his Right lion. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, proposed as an amendment a proviso to the effect tha• instead of 251. per cent. the party liable to the payment of tithes should be allowed 301. per cent. as a bonus in the event of payment within six months, and that in defau't of payment he should be liable to the whole amount of the arrears due, without any allow ance whatever. "Lord MO RPETH said that the Government could not pos . - sibly accede to the proposition of the Han. and Learned Gen tleman after all that had passed. The only question the Com mittee had to consider was, whether the powers for enforcing the payment of; the rent-charge were sufficient for the purpose or not. He thought they were quite sufficient. Mr. O'CONNELL said that the only effect of the Hon. and Ltarncd Gentleman's proposition would be to create vexa. tion and litigation, by the uncertainty of the payment which his proposition would establish if it were agreed to. Mr. LEFRO Y said that the advantage of such a bonus having been shown in the instance of the Barony cess, lie thought it right to introduce the same principle into this Bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not think the prop )sition was one which the Committee could en tertain, for, in point of fact, instead of a bonus it would estab lish a penalty. After a few words from Mr. J. GRATTAN and Sir R. FERGUSON, Mr. LEFROY withdrew his amendment. _ _ _ Captain rn tain JONES wished to call the att en ti on o f t h e Co n te e to a point of some importance, a n d t h at was the manner i n w hich this Bill would shift the liability of parties holding leases for lives. Lord STANLEY said the point adverted to by the Hon. Gentleman was worthy of attention. It was a point that ou ght to be considered on the bringing up of the report. Viscount MO RPETH said it should have his attention. Mr. L FRO Y then proposed a proviso, by way of amend ment, to the effect, that all certificates of composition should be deemed and taken, unless specially varied, as the criterion fur ascertaining by whom the rent charge was to be paid. The object of this proviso, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman said, was merely to give validity and effect to those certificates. Mr. CURRY said that as the object of the proviso seemed to be to afford more certainty in ascertainin g the rent charge, an d as it was cautiously worded, he saw no objection to it. Mr. LEFRO had taken care to word the proviso most cautiously. The proviso was then added, and the clanse as amended VI as ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses down to 8, inclusive, were thep agreed la, On elquse being propesed, Mr. L. O'BRIEN cmplained that the period allowed for :peals under this clause, namely, six week tat t)o small, and ought to be enlarged. Lord 11ORPETId said the object in fixing so snort a pe riod was to avoid encouraging vexatious app.'als, or any ap peals that were not alttgetlicr well founded, and t ) afford the titheowners some feeling of security. On the clause being put from C:e Mr. L E FRO Y rose to propose the omission of clauses from 9 to 19, and to substitute for them one c'ause which h.! had prepared. These clauses proplsed to open all former compositions. Novs it should be recollected that since those compositions had b_4 , n originally made several of the in cumbents had died and had been succeeded by others. 'Fbere was no record existing, in twiny just owes, of the pinciple on Wiich these composiiins had taken place. There was no calculaion by which to be guided, and it was easy to conceive the difficulty to which open ing compositions bat had so long ago taker place would now lead. But this Bill also proposed to open cue composi tion; that had taken plice wider the Stinky Act. lie had oljec ion, in a limited manner, and under certain te vbictions, to allow the to,re recent conyotitions under the Siaidey Act t) be renewed. lie would conclude by n)v ing the omission of the clauses front nine to nineteen, and he would move, to substitute instead, one dame provid ing for the review of the composidons in the limited way .that he had stated. Lord MO RPETH would not deny that there was some force i,n the arguments of the Right Hon. and Learard Gentleman with respect to the inconvenience of opening compositions made at a period far back. In his amendment the Right Han. Gentleman proposed to leave the plwer of appeal in a cer tain class of cases under the Bill that went by the name of the Noble Lord ( Lord S,anley.) An objection had been made to allow appeals in caies where there had beet volun tary composition, but he thought voluntary an erroneous term to apply to compositions where parties merely gave their consent that a composition should be made without any agree ment as to the amount of the composition. The difficulty of going back to 1814 would not be so great as was imagined, as the averages would ail be found in the Dublin Gazette. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that he was willing to give an appeal in any case of fraud or concealment, but he said al.o that he wished the appeal should be limited to the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council. Now he ( Lord Morpeth) thought that it would be a great advantage and convenience that the parties should go before a barrister, who would in quire upon the spot, with a facility of hearing evidence at both sides, and a great saving of both time and expense to the parties. _ Mr. G OULBURN urged upon the Committee the incon venience and danger of disturbing engagements which existed under an act of the Legislature, and so far shaking the pub lic confidence in the faith of an Act of Parliament. Nothing could be more dangetous than to introduce such a principle. With respect to the compositions made under the Act that went by his name, both parties chose a Commissioner, and the composition was the result of their mutuil voluntary ag.ee ment. Now, in many instances since these compositions had been made in 1821, the original incumbents had died, and had been succeeded in some instances by two or more successors. He repeated that it would not merely be doing injustice to individual parties, but it would be introducing a most danger ous principle at this distance of time to re-open agreements entered into with the voluntary consent of both parties, and upon the faith of an Act of Parliament.—(Hear ) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought that the apprehensions of the Right Hon. Gentleman were in some degree exaggerated. If the alteration proposed inter fered with agreements made under the Right Hon. Gentle man's Act, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would support them with very great reluctance ; but as they only contemplated revision in cases where compositions had been unfairly effected, he could not see that their adoption would impose any hardship on the clergyman. Mr. E. ROCHE did not object to the clauses as going too far, but as not going far enough. That abuses had taken place under Mr. Goulburn's Act he needed no further proof than the petition he had had the honour of presenting a few nights since. That was a petition from the parishioners of Castle Island, stating that their Rector, the very Rev. Arch deacon Ryder, bad, by fraud and collusion, procured an unfair composition under Goulburn's Act. It appeared by that petition that the Archdeacon claimed 1,8561. as composition, and that his own Bishop, on being referred to as arbitrator, awarded him only 1,450/. This showed the necessity for re vision.--:( Hear. ) Mr. LUCAS thought that this case, if established, went wholly to support the view of his Right Hon. Friend below him (Mr. Lefroy). As, even in a case when the parishioners had a right of appeal to the law, they waived that right, and preferred arbitration. Mr. SHEIL said that the facts contained in the petition mentioned by his Hon. Friend (Mr. Roche) were, that the Bishop of Cloyne, on having the matter referred to him, awarded the Archdeacon 1,4501. instead of 1,8161., his claim. From this the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite might con clude that the Archdeacon since that time had received only 1,4501., abiding by the arbitration ; but what were the facts ? He took the 1,4501. until 1832, but when the million was granted he claimed, and obtained, the proportion of his own claim, 1,856/., and afterwards made his succe , :s in that matter a ground for enforcing the same amount from his parishioners. H.ar, hear.) Surely such a case as this afforded some grounds for revision. He ( Mr. Sheil) could not vouch for the statements in this petition as facts.—(Cheers.) When the petition was presented, he advised his Hon. Friend to write to Archdeacon Ryder on the subject of its allegations.— [Mr. Roche here intimated that the Hon. and Learned Gentle man had not given him such advice.) Well, he advised same Honourable Gentleman to write—(A laugh)—but, however, revision was absolutely necessary, if it were only from the fact of the time allowed by the Right Honourable Gentleman's let being so short as to have caused great injustice and hard ship. With respect to the hardship of interfering with settled agreements, he did not think it would be very great, as the Clergyman could always rest on his composition, and the ep. plicants would be obliged to produce facts before they could shale it. In 1823 Ireland was completely infested with tithe proctors, and be must do the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite the justice to say that his Act went a great way to extinguish them; but at the time the compensation was settled those proctors were the acting parties for the Clergymen, and they arranged the compensation, not according to the standard of the net sum which the Clergyman had hitherto received, but according to what they (the proctors) had been able by every device to extort from the peasantry. He was perhaps, not justified in mentioving what occurred in private conversation, but he had heard 'through that medium that the Act had been originally more effective ; but that the Right Honourable Gentleman bad made such aterations in it during its progress through the House as were considered by the . hen Lord Lieutenaut (Marquis Wellesley) as being of an impolitic nature. Mr. GO ULBURN said the Hon. and Learned Gentle man was mistaken, as every alteration which he (Mr. Goul burn) had made in the Act with the perfect concurrence of his Excellency. Alterations, to be sure, were forced on him during the passage of the Bill through the House ; but these, in the opinion of Lord Wellesley, in no wise vitiated its prin ciple. Mr. HUME was very much surprised at fie opposition given to the proposal of the Noble Lou,, because as the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite must recollect, that on the intro duction of Mr. Goulhurn'a Bill the grounds advanced for its adoption were--that there.snrist be a revision every fifteen years.—( Hear, hear.) Sir It. PE EL observed that the Hon. Gentleman ( Mr. Hume) appeared to have awoke after a sleep of fifteen years, and was wholly uneorveious of what had passed during that pe riod.—( Hear, and laughter.) By Mr. Goulburn's Act com position was, no doubt, temporary ; but it hal been rendered permanent under Lord Stanley's Act, with a right of appeal. Why, then, hal the pa; ties who felt themselves aggrieved not availed the.nselv, sof that right ? He thought the re-opening of the composition would have a tendency to shake titles to property ; arid sure he was, that with respect to no c luntry but Ireland, and with respect to no subject but one affecting the Isish Church, would such a proposition ever have been for one moment entertained. If such a principle were once admitted why might it not be contended for in England as regards Tithe Composition 15 years hence ? tie gave his most cor dial support to the prop )sition of his Right lion. Friend (Mr. Lefroy.) Mr: O'CO NNE LL asked why Hon. Gentlemen oppasi'e were now prepared to restrict their own p,.inciple ? Before an appeal could be allowed under this Bill, there must be evidence adduced on oath in a court of law that the amount of the com position exceeded by far more than one-fifth what ought to has c been the bona fide payment under t he agreement. Why, was there ever a fairer proposition than this submitted to par-. liameut? Would Hon. Gentlemen contend that if a Protestant clergyman had got 5, 10, 15, or 20 per cent.more tan be %a s legally entitled to receive und e r th e composition that he must retain it—that before an appal could lie the amount must ex ceed 20 per cent. ? Why, what a principl e o f justice was this And yet the proposition to afford relief unless the amount was more than 20 per cent, was gravely opposed by Hon. Gentle men opposite I Why, the pound of flesh was nothing to this. Where more than 20 per cent. had been given over the just value, there must have been fraud, and a power of opening the composition ought to be given. As the present was attempted to be made a final settlement oF the tithe question, no cause of complaint ought to be allowed to remain. It ought not to bti forgotten that tithe was sprinkled with blood. The murder of the widow Ryan's son, at Rathcormac, ought nut to be forgot ten in securing such an adjustm. nt as would be conciliatory to the feelings of the people; fur that collision should be pro. duced was not to be wondered at. lie hoped that the House, by passing the clause as it stood, would give one evidence of its desire to act justly by the Irish people. Load STANLEY supported the amendment. The clause which his Right Hon. Friend proposed to' substitute for those from 9 to 19, were in his (Lord Stanley's) opinion quite ade quate to all purposes of justice ; and, therefore, he should support the amendment. Sir EDWARD SUG DEN said that the ihm. and Learned Gentleman opposite had not scrupled to call the affray at Rath. cormad a murder. He had, indeed, published an opinion, signed by himself in his capacity as lawyer, declaring that the affair amounted to a murder. Now he (Sir E. Sugden) as a lawyer would take upon himself to deplare his conviction that the opinion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was not founded in law, and moreover, that it was caleteeted to pr.).- duce, and had produced, great evil in Ireland. Mr. O'CONNELL had not been so fortunate a lawyer in England as the Right Honourable and Learned Gentleman ; but he could undertake to say that ha had seen more than he had of the practice of the criminal law. The Right Honour able Gentleman bad said that ( Mr. O'Connell) had pub lished his opinian as A lawyer that the affair at Rathcormae was a murder. That statement was not consistent with the fact.—(Hear.) The opinion in question was published un. doubtedly, and with his (Mr. O'Connell'sl name to it; but it was not rublished b/ him. That ovinion aa: given 11 himin usual vay, upon a case • sent in,- and returned in the usual way t) the client. The panic s thought prnpur to make it pub but he (Mr. O'Con , mll) did n3t publish it hims,lf. Lbw ever, he was ready to stand by that opinion now. Here were tle real facts of the C:iSJ The LI, on which the incursion of the military at Ritheormae was ma..'e was an cnclosei Sir E. SUGDEN—No. Mr. O'CONNELL—I say the field was an enclosed field. I am glad I have now brought s a eminent a lawyer to the P ant on this subject, and let it b! decide I now. The Right G.eatkman is too good a lawyei not to kenw the value of the fact which be deities. Upo) whether the field was an enelos el field or nat rests the whole question, whetter or not the aff air amounted to a murder ? I repeat it was a murder. The stAternea :.n his (Mr O'Connell'e) brief was that the fields were enclosed. The evidence at the inquest directly went to show that the:- were enclosed. Eleven witnesses proved that they wele, and there was no sufficient evidence to contradict tl.cm. That being so, the troops who broke into the field were tresp vsers, the resistance offered to then) was a legal re sit ince and ih killing that °wand was a murder. He repeated that he was glad the Right Hon. Gentleman had come forward to grapple with him on this sulsject. The case was very clear ; Parson Ryder and his ttemy committed a trespass by breaking into an inclosed field. It was due, however, to the military to say that the officers exhibited, as, indeed, they always did, the most gentlemanly conduct; and that neither t'tey nor the men showed the slightest desire to exceed the orders of the Ntagistrate. The people of Ireland, in fact, always felt the greatest confidence in the good conduct of the military, who never evinced any desire to go beyond their orders.—(Hear.) The Right lion. Gentleman could not resist admitting the murder had been committed. The evi dence went directly to prove that the fields were enclosed. The fact was not denied, that the military broke into the en. closed fields. That constituted a trespass. They were re. listed. Shots were fired, and murder was committed. For three shillings and four pence seven human beings lost their lives, and four were rendered helpless for the remainder of their days.—( Hear.) Sir ED WA RD SUGD EN regretted that this discussion had arisen.—( Cries of " Oh, oh !" on the Ministerial side.) lion. Gentlemen cried " Oh l"—did they imagine that he began it? Who first introduced, on a question relating to the opening of compositions, the subject of the affray at Rath cormac?—(Opposition cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman might cry " Oh I" but it was not his doing so that would induce him (Sir Edward Sudden) to swerve from the line of his duty, or to abstain from expressing his opi nion. He cared not for such expressions and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's feelings.—( Hear, hear.) He utterly denied that the whole of the evidence on the inquest and elsewhere went to show that the fields were enclosed. Ho denied that there was no evidence to the contrary effect. So far from it, he asserted, from the tenure of the evidence, that there was no enclosure whatever. He asserted this as a fact, and he would stand to it._ The Hon. and Le arne d Gen- demon had stigmatised this affair, in regard to which Judge Foster had charged the. Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury had ignored the bill, as a murder. It was very easy for the Hon. and Learned Member to rise in that House and malign a learned Judge, but did the facts bear tho Hon. and Learned Gentleman out? He again asserted that there was no en closure ; he insisted upon it as a fact, which he was prepared to substantiate. So far from there being any enclosure, there was fair and clear access for hundreds of persons, had they been disposed to enter upon ordinary concerns. True it was that in the mean time the parties who were determined to oppose the law had drawn up carriages and other things so as to block up the passage and erect an illegal barrier. But such a barrier erected for such a purpose was clearly illegal. No trespass therefore was committed by forcing it, and he ( Sir E. Sugden), as a lawyer, asserted that under those cir cumstances no murder was committed. Mr. O'CONNE LL repeated that a murder, an unavenged murder, was committed. The Right Hon. Gentleman had adverted to Chief Baron Foster. Why, Judge Foster in his charge to the Grand Jury, did not put to them the question of the enclosure at all, but entered into a long rambling state ment of the political motive which had induced the parties to oppose the entrance of the military. As to Judge Foster being a " Learned" Judge—why, learned he certainly was, by courtesy ; but he spent 25 years at the bar without getting a brief, all his time being occupied in parliamentary avocations. For these it was that by a hop, step, and jump he rose to the bench.—( Hear ) He (Mr. O'Connell) was quite satisfied as to the result of this conversation. He had elicited the opinion of one of the first legal authorities of the day, that the fact of the enclosure being once admitted, he could not deny that the subsequent catastrophe amounted to a murder. Now the whole weight of the evidence distinctly proved that the enclo sure dii exist, so that the opinion of the Right Hon. Gentle man was, in fact, as good as a declaration that murder was committed.—( Hear.) Mr. ROCHE (Cork county) knew the spot as well as he knew his father's estate, and he would state from his own knowledge that the haggard was enclosed before the affray and after it. The Committee then divided, when there appeared-- For the clause Against it BB Majority for the clause -15 Clauses from 10 to 21 inclusive were then agreed to. The clause, as amended, was Agreed to, as were the clauses to the 40th inclusive. Upon the 41st clause, Mr. SMITH O'BRI EN moved an amendment that mini sters' money, as it was termed, should be comprised in the de finition of house. Lord AIORPBTH could not admit that definition at present. He certainly admitted that it might properly enough be made the subject of a Bill in a future Session ; but before they could legislate on it several Acts on those two s u bjects ought to be examined and dealt with. The amendment was negatived without a division. Mr. E. B. ROC El E proposed the clause of which he had given notice : Provided always, and be it enacted, that if any p ar ty or parties entitled, or who would have been entitled in case this Act had not been made, to any composition for tithes esta blished in any parish, shall offer to reduce or increase the amount of any such composition, and shall signify such offer in writing, stating the amount of the sum or several sums so pro posed to be substituted for the amount of such composition. and if such offcrshall be assented to and accepted in writing by a majority in value of the persons who, if this Act had not been made, would have been liable to the payment of the compo sition established in such parish, or if any composition for tithes in any parish has been by any agreement between the parties interested, or any award in writing, or other written document, reduced or increased, or agreed to be reduced or increased, th e sum or sums so agreed upon or awarded shall be binding on the said Commissioners of land revenues, and the said barristers, and shall be fixed as the amount of such composition, and the certificate thereof amended accordingly. ° Lord MO R PETH was of opinion that the first part of the clause might be admitted, but he thought differen ly as to the latter part ; the cases the Hon. Member's amendment applied to were already sufficiently provided for by the clauses as they stood. The clause wns finally withdrawn. Tim. House resumed, and the report was ordered to be re• ceived on Thursday. upon which day also Lord J. RUSSELL informed the House be shraild brirg under their consideration the resolutions submitted to the House for the first time to-night. The House resolved itself then into Committee upon the Prisans Bill. The several c:auses of the Bill having been agreed to tio /louse resumed ; the report was brought up, and the Bill or dered to be read a third time on Friday. TRADING COMPANIES' BILL. On the motion of Mr. THOMSON, this Bill went through Committee. The Hous.i resumed, and th'3 report was ordered to be real to- morrow. COUNTY OF CLARE ADVANCR BILL. On the motion of Lcrd M RPE T 11, this Bill went throne Committee. The (louse resumed,and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow. TUNES AND LAND MERGER BILL. °lithe motion of Mr. AGLIONBY, this Bill went throug h Committee. The HOuse resumed, and the report wag received. REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS BILL. The further consideration of the report on this Bill wa s postponed until to morrow. LAND TAX REDEMPTION BILL. Thig Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be cal" mitted to- morrow. COAL TRADE (PORT OF LONDON) BILL. On the motion of Mr. THOMSON, this 13ill was read 6 third time and passed. WAY RATES B On the moti on of iiIGH Lerd J. RUSSELLI, LL this Bill was rea d a third time ; after which Mr. G IZIMSDITCH brought up a clause, proposing to ell" act that the money raised in each parish or township should be expended in the parish ov township where it was so raised. Mr. SHAW LE FE VRE had originally been in favour 0 f ~.` the principl e contained in the pioposed clause ; but, inasmuch as it had been rejected in the Committee, after much discug sion, he was not now prepared to adopt it. The clause was brought up and read a first time. On th e question that it be read a second time the House divided, when there appeared Noes Ayes ... Majority against the clause —32 The Bill was then passed. FISHEIZIES.(IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of Mr. E. TENNENT, this Bill was re ad a second time, and committed for Wednesday. PUBLIC RECORDS. The Hou e resolved itself into a Committee of the who le House, when a resoluti o n was agreed to for a grant t o .defr% the expense of the record co mm i ss i on, and for other porpose, connected therevrith. The House tesumed, the resolution n 5 reported and agreed to, and leave was given, fo r th e introduc' tion cf a Bill founded thereon. On Vie motion of M BONES.r. CH AL NI E R S, a return was ordere of the qualtity o f b anes imported into the United Eingdnnl' from foreign countries, in thS years 1835 and 1836, disti ry guisbing the quantity from each country. ESTABLISHED CHURCH. • . Lord JOHN RUSSELL, obtained leave t o b r im?: 'ft, Bill for f urt h er suspending the appointment to certain ur; nities a n d o ffi ces in cathedrals and collegiate churches, 01 sinecu re rectories, and for preventing the immediate eff.ntsb one ecclesi as ti ca l jurisdictions cf the moasures in progress for alteration of dioceses. The Bill was afterwards brought up, read a first, and or' dered to be read A sooond time on Thursday next.